OGC internal review of our Freedom of Information Act request for the Gateway Reviews of the Home Office ID Card Programme

| 1 TrackBack

Following the feeble disclosure from the Office of Government Commerce regarding our FOIA request for the now out of date Gateway Reviews of the Home Office's Identity Cards Programme, we asked for an internal review.

As feared, this has not elicited any more information about the Identity Cards Programme.

All the arguements used about why it is allegedly not in the public interest to disclose these Gateway Reviews, are exactly what the Civil Service marshalled against the whole concept of Freedom of Information. Where is the alleged "culture change" that the years of preparation and training for the Freedom of Information Act should have produced ?

Is "Sir Humphrey Appleby" still in charge ?

Has this FOIA request been deliberately delayed by the politicians and spin doctors, for the full statutory 20 working days, followed by a further 15 working days for "public interest balancing", followed by another month of "internal review", simply to avoid producing any answers which might have informed the debates during the various stages of the controversial Identity Cards Bill ?

How can it be that the high level details of actual project objectivesa and risks, for the Identity Cards Programme, a multi-billion pound project, with massive implications for the whole relationship between the State and the Citizen will not emerge until the project disaster that many people fear, has already wasted our money, and compromised both our civil liberties and national security ?

The Criminal Records Bureau disaster happened because the basic assumptions of how the public would use the service were wrong i.e. the assumption was individual disclosure applications via a web page, in real life there were multiple, bulk disclosure requests via post and by phone.

Why doesn't the Government publish these so called Gateway Reviews, without personally identifying any of the civil servants and consultants, only their conclusions and recommendations ?

Having exhausted the internal appeal process, only now is it possible to submit this FOIA request to the Information Commissioner for a ruling.

Presumably the "Department for Constitutional Affairs Clearing House for Freedom of Information Act enquiries" mentioned in the reply below, is the "secret spin unit" which this article in The Independent refers to ?

Internal Review reply:

OGC
Office of Government Commerce
Tel: 020 7271 nnnn
Fax: 020 7271 nnnn
AAA.BBB@ogc.gsi.gov.uk

[Address]

24 March 2005
By e-mail to
[email address]

Dear Mr X

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST REFERENCE NO: nnnn

I write in connection with your request for an Internal Review dated 23 February 2005.

Your request for an Internal Review relates to your original FOI Request dated 01 January 2005 for the following information:

The two pre-stage zero and the actual stage zero Gateway reviews of the Identity Cards Programme project being run by Home Office.

Having carried out an Internal Review of the decision to disclose some but not all of the information requested (a decision which was transmitted to you in a letter dated 22 February 2005), I have decided to uphold the original decision.

My reasons for reaching this decision are set out at Annex A and the process for carrying out the review is set out at Annex B.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact the Service Desk (details at the bottom of the first page) quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

AAA BBB
Deputy Chief Executive


OGC Service Desk
Rosebery Court, St Andrew's Business Park, Norwich NR7 0HS
Tel: 0845 000 4999, e-mail ServiceDesk@ogc.gsi.gov.uk

Annex A
Freedom of Information Act request reference no: nnnn

Review of decision

1. I have been asked to review the decision made by OGC to disclose some but not all of the information requested by Mr X in a request handled by OGC under the reference number 92247.

2. CCCC DDDD, Director of Legal Services, OGC has advised me during this review.

3. CCCC and I were not involved in any formal meetings or correspondence relating to this Freedom of Information Act request prior to our involvement in the review of OGC’s decision. As senior managers within OGC both CCCC and I would have been aware of the progress of all Freedom of Information Act requests as they are handled within OGC and we may have attended management meetings where the progress of this case, amongst others, was discussed. Both CCCC and I are sufficiently disinterested and distant from the original OGC decision to be competent to provide an independent review.

4. I have examined documents prepared for me. I am confident that OGC handled the request systematically and expeditiously. Whilst the decision made was consistent with but distinct from other decisions taken on the disclosure of Gateway Reviews, I am satisfied that it was treated on its own merits. I have considered the questions set out in the Process for Carrying out Internal Review prepared by OGC’s Legal Team and I am satisfied that they are answered either
in the papers prepared for me or in this note.

5. The information requested involved liaison with two Divisions within OGC and also with the Home Office and the DCA Clearing House for Freedom of Information Act enquiries.

6. The exemptions engaged in this request were section 33(1)(b) and (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) and in respect of parts of the information, section 35(1)(a) and (3) of the Act. The papers I have reviewed fully disclose the reasons why these exemptions are engaged and I am satisfied that the correct exemptions were engaged.

7. The arguments for disclosure were in summary that disclosure of the Gateway Reviews would enable the public to form a view on:

a) Whether the recommendations of the review were being implemented

b) Whether the Gateway process was generally effective.

8. The arguments put for non-disclosure were held to outweigh those for disclosure. The arguments for non-disclosure in summary held that:

a) Disclosure might inhibit candour in future Gateway Reviews

b) Lack of candour may reduce the likelihood of adverse recommendations being made to Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) leading to a less reliable process

c) The risk of disclosure may result in more cautiously drafted documents with recommendations negotiated between reviewers and SROs, which would result in delays and more anodyne reports.


9. The papers I reviewed did not fully expose how the arguments for non-disclosure were balanced against those for disclosure. I shall attempt to both reconstruct them as part of my review and add additional material.

10. I have confirmed the facts set out below in a meeting with colleagues.

11. In order to balance disclosure against non-disclosure it seems to me to be necessary to answer the following questions:

a) Does the Gateway process deliver a public benefit?

b) Does the Gateway process depend on candour and confidentiality?

c) Would the threat of disclosure materially alter the recommendations made by a Gateway review team?

d) Would the harm to the public interest of disclosure in this case outweigh the benefit to the public interest of disclosure?


12. The first question is - ‘Does the Gateway process deliver a public benefit?’

13. In response, I would accept that there is a public benefit in using public monies economically and HM Treasury has announced that OGC’s Gateway processes have accounted for over £700 million of value for money savings in the SR02 period. These figures have been produced using a methodology approved by the National Audit Office (NAO).

14. I would also accept that there is a public benefit in public monies being used effectively and efficiently. A measure of this is the extent to which projects are delivered to time and specification. Reports to OGC’s Supervisory Board demonstrate that projects, which are subject to Gateway processes, improve their RAG (Red/Amber/Green) score during their lifecycle. In addition, Gateway Reviews remain voluntary and Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) are unlikely to expose themselves and their staff to the review process if it was not generally held to add value. Since the Gateway service was launched in 2001, over 900 Gateway Reviews have been undertaken.

15. I conclude that the Gateway process demonstrably offers a public benefit.

16. The second question is - ‘Does the Gateway process depend on candour and confidentiality?’

17. While the Gateway processes evolve, a significant feature of the offering to SROs is that they can rely on the key features of the offering which includes the quality of the teams undertaking the reviews, the processes the teams use and the confidentiality of all aspects of those processes. Much of the effort of the Gateway management team is expended in quality assuring the offering to SROs. The evidence in support of this is that the Gateway offering has not changed in substance over the 900 times that SROs have requested it.

18. Therefore in 900 instances SROs and other members of the various Project Teams have assumed that in being interviewed as part of a Gateway Review they can be candid in the knowledge that what they say will be treated in confidence by the Gateway team and the SRO can be confident of this in requesting a review.

19. OGC has trained a cadre of around 800 Gateway Reviewers and each reviewer has to undergo a training course that emphasises the relationship between candour and confidentiality.

20. Gateway Reviewers use interviews with a range of stakeholders in a project as the fundamental mechanism for gathering information about the project upon which to form their judgement. All the interviews undertaken so far which are estimated at around 10,000 have been undertaken on the assumption that the persons being interviewed can be candid and that what they say will be treated in
confidence.

21. I have also been present at a meeting of the OGC Supervisory Board, which discussed Gateways, at which Permanent Secretaries stressed that in their view candid discussions are essential to the success of the Gateway process and that candour is undermined if there is a risk that what is said in confidence might be disclosed publicly.

22. I conclude that the Gateway offering demonstrably depends on candour and confidentiality.

23. The third question is – ‘would the threat of disclosure materially alter the recommend ations made by a Gateway review te am?’

24. The preceding argument conclude s that the threat of disclosure would inhibit the Gateway reviewers' capacity to collect information about projects being reviewed and also red uces the ap petite of SROs for Gate way Re views. It is reasonable to argue that in consequen ce the threat of disclosure is likely to result in:

  • SROs of projects which are likely to attract adverse recommendations not requesting Gateway Reviews – so the public interest is har med because the projects in greatest need of support are least likely to receive it

  • The information available to Gateway Reviewers on those projects, which are reviewed, being more likely to be more anodyne – so the public interest is harmed because the recommendatio ns that would offer the greatest bene fit are less likely to emerge.


25. In addition, Gateway Re views usually begin on a Monday and the report is presented to the SRO on the following Friday morning. The report is usually drafted on the Thursday afternoon. In consequence most effort is expended on refining the substance of the findings and recommendations rather than their drafting. The threat of disclosure is likely to result in the Gateway Re view team and the SRO spending more effort on drafting than formulating the substance of their recommendation, which will either result in delays or diluting of the substance of the report.

26. The directne ss of the recommendations in the Gateway Reports and the timeliness of their delivery have been major attractions to SROs as evidenced by feedback and surveys. It is reasonable to conclude that there is risk of harm to the public interest from anything that delays or dilutes the recommendations from Gateway Reviews.

27. I conclude that the threat of disclosure would increase the risk that the recommendations made by a Gateway review te am would be altered in a way that would harm the public interest.

28. The fourth question is - ‘would the harm to the public interest of disclosure in this case outweigh the benefit to the public interest of disclosure?’

29. As I have previously identified and as was explained to Mr X
in the decision letter of 22 February 2005, the arguments for disclosure are in summary that disclosu re of the Gateway Reviews would enable the public to form a view on:

a) Whether the recommendations of the review were being implemented

b) Whether the Gateway process was generally effective.

30. In relation to the public interest in non-disclosure, the Gateway process would be harmed if Gateway reports were disclosed or threatened with disclosure. However, would a greater benefit be created if the Gateway reports requested in nnnn were released?

31. Firstly, the Home Office Identify Cards Programme is one of over 100 Mission Critical Projects and one of around 20 Key Government
Projects. It is difficult to argue that the public would benefit more from disclosure on the Home Office Identity Cards Programme than they would be harmed by the weakening of the contribution of the Gateway process to the other 19 Key projects or 99 plus Mission Critical Projects.

32. Secondly, not only does the Gateway process benefit all public sector projects it is also presently unique. So if it were weakened then there is no other process, which would replace it at present.

33. Thirdly, the information requested has contributed towards the, still live, policy development process relating to the Home Office Identity Cards Programme and disclosure of this information would reveal significant detail of the formulation of Government policy, which could undermine that policy process.

34. In conclusion, in my judgement, the benefit to the public of non-disclosure of the requested information relating to the Home Office Identify Cards Programme is greater than the benefit of disclosure on the basis that:

a) Disclosure or the threat of disclosure is likely to weaken the contribution of Gateway processes to the delivery of projects

b) More than one project of equivalent importance to the public would be effected by the weakening of the Gateway process

c) The Gateway process is presently unique and an y weakening of it would not be in the public interest.

d) Disclosure of the information could undermine the, still live, policy development process.

AAAA BBBB


Annex B

Process for Carrying out Internal Review

Collation of Information

Information should be provided to the person carrying out the Review ("the Reviewer") by the TIM (1) /DDM (2) /Legal Advisor/FOI Team/Minutes of Public Interest Panel in a form consiste nt with the questions set out below.

Review

The Reviewer should review the information provided with a view to

addressing the following questions: -

Initial questions

1. What is the nature of the complaint – is it about information not being released, or is it about processes followed when handling the original request?

2. Did OGC understand cor rectly the scope of the information requested?

3. If not, was appropriate advice and assistance provided to the applicant?

4. Did OGC hold the information requested?

5. Did OGC identify the appropriate exemptions? (Note here should be taken of DCA/ICO guidance.)

6. Is the complaint about fees? If a fee notice was issued, was it issued in a timely manner, and was appropriate advice and assistan ce provided to the applicant to narrow the request to bring it under the upper limit? Was the fee calculated correctly?

7. Was the request dealt with in a timely matter? Di d the response get issued within 20 working days? If not was an extension of time notice issued?

Absolute exemptions

8. If an absolute exemption, did OGC guide itself correctly as to the appropriate tests and make the correct decision (e.g. - the tests for confidentiality) (Note here should be taken of DCA/ICO guidance.)

Qualified exemptions

9. If a qualified exemption, did OGC guide itself correctly as to the appropriate tests? (e.g. - was able to show prejudice or likely prejudice for the prejudice-based exemptions.) (Note here should be taken of DCA/ICO guidance.)

10. If a qualified exemption, did OGC identify public interest arguments for and against disclosure?

11. If a qualified exemption, did OGC identify on which considerations it placed any significant weight?


(1) TIM = Team Information Manager
(2) DDM = Disclosure Decision Maker

12. If the answers to (5) to (7) are affirmative, was the decision of the DDM/Public Interest Panel not to disclose corre ct?

General questions
13. At all stages, was appropriate regard had to any views of the DCA Clearing House?

14. At all stages, was appropriate regards made to the Statutory Code of Practice, DCA and ICO guidance?

15. At all stages, was there appropriate consultation with other public bodies and affected third parties?

Decision
If the Reviewer is unsatisfied on any of the above, then consideration sh ould be given as to whether this would alter the original finding to withhold the requested information. If it would, a finding to this effect should be made and the applicant should be notified accordingly and, where appropriate, additional information should be disclosed to the applicant. If it would not, a finding to this effect should be made and the applicant shou ld be notified accordingly.

However, if the Reviewer is satisfied on all the above, then he should make a finding to that effect and the applicant should be notified accordingly.

1 TrackBack

We have now been sent the OGC internal review of our Freedom of Information Act request for the Gateway Reviews of the Home Office ID Card Programme As feared, this has not elicited any more information about the Idnetity Cards... Read More

About this blog

This United Kingdom based blog has been spawned from Spy Blog, and is meant to provide a place to track our Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests to United Kingdom Government and other Public Authorities.

If you have suggestions for other FOIA requests,  bearing in mind the large list of exemptions, then email them to us, or use the comments facility on this blog, and we will see  what we can do, without you yourself having to come under the direct scrutiny of  "Sir Humphrey Appleby" or his minions.

Email Contact

Please feel free to email us your views about this website or news about the issues it tries to comment on:

email: blog @spy[dot]org[dot]uk

Here is our PGP public encryption key or download it via a PGP Keyserver.

WhatDoTheyKnow.com

WhatDoTheyKnow.com - FOIA request submission and publication website from MySociety.org

Campaign Button Links

Watching Them, Watching Us - UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign
UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign

NO2ID Campaign - cross party opposition to the NuLabour Compulsory Biometric ID Card
NO2ID Campaign - cross party opposition to the NuLabour Compulsory Biometric ID Card and National Identity Register centralised database.

Gary McKinnon is facing extradition to the USA under the controversial Extradition Act 2003, without any prima facie evidence or charges brought against him in a UK court. Try him here in the UK, under UK law.
Gary McKinnon is facing extradition to the USA under the controversial Extradition Act 2003, without any prima facie evidence or charges brought against him in a UK court. Try him here in the UK, under UK law.

FreeFarid_150.jpg
FreeFarid.com - Kafkaesque extradition of Farid Hilali under the European Arrest Warrant to Spain

Peaceful resistance to the curtailment of our rights to Free Assembly and Free Speech in the SOCPA Designated Area around Parliament Square and beyond
Parliament Protest blog - resistance to the Designated Area restricting peaceful demonstrations or lobbying in the vicinity of Parliament.

Petition to the European Commission and European Parliament against their vague Data Retention plans
Data Retention is No Solution - Petition to the European Commission and European Parliament against their vague Data Retention plans.

Save Parliament: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (and other issues)
Save Parliament - Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (and other issues)

Open_Rights_Group.png
Open Rights Group

The Big Opt Out Campaign - opt out of having your NHS Care Record medical records and personal details stored insecurely on a massive national centralised database.

Tor - the onion routing network
Tor - the onion routing network - "Tor aims to defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal anonymity and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Communications are bounced around a distributed network of servers called onion routers, protecting you from websites that build profiles of your interests, local eavesdroppers that read your data or learn what sites you visit, and even the onion routers themselves."

Tor - the onion routing network
Anonymous Blogging with Wordpress and Tor - useful Guide published by Global Voices Advocacy with step by step software configuration screenshots (updated March 10th 2009).

irrepressible_banner_03.gif
Amnesty International's irrepressible.info campaign

anoniblog_150.png
BlogSafer - wiki with multilingual guides to anonymous blogging

ngoiab_150.png
NGO in a box - Security Edition privacy and security software tools

homeofficewatch_150.jpg
Home Office Watch blog, "a single repository of all the shambolic errors and mistakes made by the British Home Office compiled from Parliamentary Questions, news reports, and tip-offs by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs team." - does this apply to the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government as well ?

rsf_logo_150.gif
Reporters Without Borders - Reporters Sans Frontières - campaign for journalists 'and bloggers' freedom in repressive countries and war zones.

committee_to_protect_bloggers_150.gif
Committee to Protect Bloggers - "devoted to the protection of bloggers worldwide with a focus on highlighting the plight of bloggers threatened and imprisoned by their government."

Icelanders_are_NOT_Terrorists_logo_150.jpg
Icelanders are NOT terrorists ! - despite Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's use of anti-terrorism legislation to seize the assets of Icelandic banks.

nocctv.gif
No CCTV - The Campaign Against CCTV

phnat-logo-black-on-white_150.jpg

I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist !

power2010_132.png

Power 2010 cross party, political reform campaign

Cracking_the_Black_Box_black_150.jpg

Cracking the Black Box - "aims to expose technology that is being used in inappropriate ways. We hope to bring together the insights of experts and whistleblowers to shine a light into the dark recesses of systems that are responsible for causing many of the privacy problems faced by millions of people."

surveillance_72.jpg

Open Rights Group - Petition against the renewal of the Interception Modernisation Programme

Yes, Minister

Yes, Minister Series 1, Episode 1, "Open Government" First airtime BBC: 25 February 1980

"Bernard Woolley: "Well, yes, Sir...I mean, it [open government] is the Minister's policy after all."
Sir Arnold: "My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms: you can be open or you can have government."

FOIA Links

Campaign for the Freedom of Information

Office of the Information Commissioner,
who is meant to regulate the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scottish Information Commissioner,
who similarly regulates the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002

Information Tribunal - deals with appeals against decisions by the Information Commissioners.

Freedom of Information pages - Department for Constitutional Affairs

Friends of the Earth FOIA Request Generator and links to contact details for Central Government Departments and their Publication Schemes

UK Government Information Asset Register - in theory, this should point you to the correct Government documents, but in practice...well see for yourself.

Access all Information is also logging some FOIA requests

foi.mysociety.org - prototype FOIA request submission, tracking and publication website

Blog Links

Spy Blog

UK Freedom of Information Act Blog - started by Steve Wood, now handed over to Katherine Gundersen

Your Right To Know - Heather Brooke

Informaticopia - Rod Ward

Open Secrets - a blog about freedom of information by BBC journalist Martin Rosenbaum

Panopticon blog - by Timothy Pitt-Payne and Anya Proops. Timothy Pitt-Payne is probably the leading legal expert on the UK's Freedom of Information Act law, often appearing on behlaf of the Information Commissioner's Office at the Information Tribunal.

Syndicate this site (XML):

November 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Categories